Cities, Counties, and Organizations File Amicus Briefs in Support of City Suit Against AG Sessions
Philadelphia – Recently, four groups representing various cities, counties, and social and legal organizations filed amicus briefs in support of the case brought by the City of Philadelphia against United States Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, which claims that the Attorney General added unlawful conditions to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. The case is before the Hon. Michael M. Baylson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Court will hear testimony on the case on Thursday, October 26, at 9:15 AM in Courtroom 3A of the James A. Byrne Courthouse, located at 601 Market Street. The City will provide testimony from several witnesses, including Police Commissioner Richard Ross.
Excerpts from the briefs of Amicus Curiae, known more commonly as “Friends of the Court,” are listed below. Full copies can be provided upon request. The briefs were filed on Friday, October 20, 2017.
Philadelphia Social and Legal Services Organizations: Community Legal Services, Friends of Farmworkers, HIAS Pennsylvania, Nationalities Service Center, New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Immigration & Citizenship Coalition, Victim/Witness Services of South Philadelphia, and Women Against Abuse all filed a join brief. In it, they explain that Philadelphia’s existing immigration policy has expanded the organizations’ ability to connect with the communities they serve, specifically noting that the policies increase undocumented immigrants’ willingness to report crimes and participate in subsequent prosecutions. That willingness is particularly crucial for undocumented victims of domestic violence who, when faced with immigration consequences, may never seek legal protection or assistances.
“Amici have seen first-hand the benefits of the City’s policies designed to embrace its immigrant communities, including policies that prevent City employees from unnecessarily collecting and disclosing its residents’ immigration information. Those City policies have boosted Amici’s efforts to serve effectively the region’s immigrant communities by allowing Amici to assure their constituents and clients that contact with the City and its employees will not ineluctably result in the disclosure of immigration information to federal officials. Without that assurance, Amici are concerned that mixed-status and undocumented families and individuals will recede into the shadows, making it difficult – if not impossible – for Amici to provide services vital to the safety, health, and welfare of the entire community. Amici therefore are concerned about the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) effort to impose new and unlawful conditions on the City’s Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne Grant) will imperil the City’s current policies, which have been carefully designed to encourage its vibrant and substantial immigrant communities to participate more fully in civic life.”
County of Santa Clara, et al.: Santa Clara County, California, and a group of cities, counties and municipal organizations including Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, NYC, Portland and Seattle filed a joint brief in support of Philadelphia’s case. In it, they explain that the Attorney General’s grant conditions undermine localities’ ability to adopt community-specific law enforcement policies that promote public safety and welfare. The Constitution, amici explain, places the responsibility for protecting the health and safety of citizens on states and localities, and many local jurisdictions have determined the needs of their communities are best met by limiting local involvement in immigration enforcement.
“The DOJ’s new conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (‘Byrne JAG’) program violate federal law, usurp local control over public safety policy, erode the community trust on which local law enforcement depends, and create uncertainty for local governments like amici. A district court in Chicago has already recognized this and preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of two of these conditions on a nationwide basis. But the federal government continues to dispute the nationwide scope of this injunction, and a preliminary injunction is required from this Court to protect Philadelphia and prevent irreparable harm to its law enforcement efforts and its local residents.”
Administrative Law, Constitutional Law and Immigration Law Scholars: A group of individual Law Professors from 62 law schools across the country filed a join brief in support of the City’s case. In it, they argue that the administration’s threat to deny law enforcement funding for the City of Philadelphia is outside its constitutional authority. Specifically, amici argue (1) the Attorney General has ignored constitutional limits on federal spending power that exist to protect states and localities and (2) the Attorney General’s conditions on funding have not been authorized by Congress and, even if they had, the conditions would still violate the limits on constitutional spending power.
“The Attorney General would have this Court hold that a federal agency may impose its own conditions on a funding program without clear and specific congressional authorization, even when those conditions are inconsistent with Congress’s purposes. Should the Court accept this invitation, it would set a dangerous precedent that goes far beyond the current bid to force Byrne JAG recipients to implement the President and Attorney General’s immigration policies. Administration officials will feel free to disregard the balance between state and federal authority and require states and localities to administer whatever unrelated priorities the executive wants to pursue in any particular fiscal year. This case confirms the need for federal courts to protect federalism by enforcing constitutional limits on federal executive power.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus (AAAJ-ALC), & the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC): In their joint brief, these groups explain that the Attorney General’s new grant conditions are part of a broad escalation in the administration’s efforts to coerce local governments to enforce federal immigration policies. Federal efforts to exploit local resources for immigration enforcement have increase consistently over the past decade and drastically over the past month, and this exploitation has undermined locally developed community policing strategies.
“The Attorney General seeks to exercise an extraordinary new authority to use funds appropriated by Congress as leverage to force police chiefs and sheriffs to adopt his own preferred immigration policies. No Attorney General has ever claimed such a sweeping power under the JAG program. Amici submit this brief for two related reasons: (1) to provide the historical context surrounding this latest attempt to coerce local enforcement assistance, and (2) to explain that basic federalism and statutory construction principles preclude the Attorney General’s claimed statutory authority to dictate local policing decisions using JAG funds.”